var str = "This is a simple test!";
var needle = "sImPle";
str.toLowerCase().includes(needle.toLowerCase())
new RegExp(needle, 'i').test(str);
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
lowercase + includes | |
RegExp + i |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
lowercase + includes | 176298160.0 Ops/sec |
RegExp + i | 17086770.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.
Benchmark Definition
The benchmark is defined by two test cases:
lowercase + includes
: This test case measures the performance of using the toLowerCase()
method followed by the includes()
method to search for a substring within a string.RegExp + i
: This test case measures the performance of using a regular expression with the i
flag (which makes the regex match in a case-insensitive manner) to search for a substring within a string.Options Compared
In this benchmark, two approaches are being compared:
toLowerCase()
method followed by includes()
: This approach involves converting both the input string and the needle to lowercase before searching for the substring.i
flag: This approach involves creating a regex pattern that matches the substring in a case-insensitive manner.Pros and Cons of Each Approach
toLowerCase()
method followed by includes()
:i
flag:Library and Purpose
There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the toLowerCase()
method and the regular expression pattern are part of the JavaScript standard library.
Special JS Feature or Syntax
Neither of the test cases uses a special JavaScript feature or syntax that requires explanation. Both approaches rely on basic string manipulation methods.
Other Alternatives
If you were to modify this benchmark, you might consider adding additional test cases, such as:
i
flag with a regex pattern (e.g., new RegExp(needle, 'gi')
) for case-insensitive matching.Keep in mind that the goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches, so any additional test cases should aim to provide more comprehensive insights into each approach's strengths and weaknesses.